From the Archives: Joseph Smith or the Sword!?

By November 17, 2007

Justin’s recent post at Mormon Wasp describes the latest Jack Chick anti-Mormon comic book, The Enchanter. Chick’s comic contains a picture of Joseph Smith, dressed in full Nauvoo Legion attire, saying: “If the people let us alone, we will preach the gospel in peace. But if they come on us to molest us, we will establish our religion with the sword. We will trample down our enemies and make it one gore of blood…from the Rocky Mountains to the Atlantic Ocean. I will be to this generation a 2nd Muhammad, whose motto in treating for peace was ?the Al-Qur’an or the sword.’ So shall it be with us — ?Joseph Smith or the sword!’ (See History of the Church, Vol. 3, p. 167).” This quote was also included in the recent movie September Dawn, in a scene depicting the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor in 1844.

The funny thing about Chick’s comic and September Dawn is that they depict Smith saying this quote in Illinois. Historical sources attribute this statement to Smith not in Illinois, but in Missouri in 1838, when mob violence was escalating. The quote is taken from Thomas B. Marsh’s October 24, 1838 affidavit, which describes a speech given by Smith the previous summer. Marsh’s statement is corroborated by three other individuals, George M. Hinkle, John Corrill, George Walter, and partially by a fourth, Abner Scovil. Walter and Scovil place the speech in June 1838, soon after the expulsion of Mormon dissenters from Far West. As an entry in Smith’s journal entry suggests, “some excitement was raised in the adjoining Counties, that is Ray & Clay, against us, in consequence of the suden departure of these wicked character[s], of the apostates from this Church, into that vicinity reporting false stories, and statements, but when they [the Missourians] come to hear the other side of the question their feeling[s] were all allayed upon that subject especially.”[1]

We will never know with certainty if Smith made this statement or not. To my knowledge, Marsh, Hinkle, Corrill, Walter, and Scovil were the only individuals that recorded the quote, and the first three had left the Church prior to making their statements (I’m not sure about either Walter or Scovil). It should be remembered that in the summer and fall of 1838, Joseph Smith was under increasing pressure to defend his people from mob encroachments. There was considerable fear that the dissenters (led by Oliver Cowdery and the Whitmers) would raise a mob and drive out the Mormons. After being driven from Jackson County in 1834, Mormon leaders declared in 1838 that they would not be driven again, and therefore advocated violent counter-measures. Given this context, it is possible that Smith made some kind of reference to violent resistance and may have compared himself to the Muslim prophet. But there is no evidence that Smith had similar sentiments in Nauvoo, and for that reason it is unfortunate that Chick and September Dawn chose to conflate the alleged Missouri statement with the Nauvoo setting, as though to suggest that Smith was by nature a dangerous fanatic that advocated throughout his life militarily taking over the world. That simply was not the case.

Thomas B. Marsh

I have heard the prophet say that he should yet tread down his enemies, and walk over their dead bodies; that if he was not let alone he would be a second Mahomet to this generation, and that he would make it one gore of blood from the Rocky Mountains to the Atlantic Ocean; that like Mahomet, whose motto, in treating for peace, was” the Alcoran or the Sword,” so should it be eventually with us, “Joseph Smith or the Sword.” These last statements were made during the last summer. [2]

George M. Hinkle

I have heard Joseph Smith, jr. say that he believed Mahomet was a good man; that the Koran was not a true thing, but the world belied Mohamet, as they had belied him, and that Mahomet was a true prophet. [3]

John Corrill

In the last, or in some public meeting, Joseph Smith, jr., said: if the people would let us alone, we would preach the gospel to them in peace; but, if they came on us to molest us, we would establish our religion by the sword; and that he would become to this generation a second Mahomet. [4]

George Walter

Soon after the dissenters were driven away from Caldwell county, I was in Far-West, in Corill’s [Corrill’s] store, perhaps the last of June last, and heard Joseph Smith, jun., say, that he believed Mahomet was an inspired man, and had done a great deal of good, and that he intended to take the same course Mahomet did; that if the people would let him alone, he would, after a while, die a natural death; but if they did not, he would make it one gore of blood from the Rocky Mountains to the State of Maine. He further said, that he had, or would have, (the witness does not-remember which,) as regular an inquisition as ever was established, and as good a set of inquisitors as ever was. This conversation was had when talking about the dissenters. [5]

Abner Scovil

In the latter part of June last, I heard Joseph Smith, jun., say, that if the people would let him alone, he would conquer them by the sword of the spirit; but if they would not, he would beat the plough-shares into swords, and their pruning-hooks into spears, and conquer them he would. [6]


[1] JS, Journal, [July 1838], in Dean C. Jessee, ed., The Papers of Joseph Smith, vol. 2, Journal, 1832-1842 (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1992), 255-56.

[2] Affidavit of Thomas B. Marsh, Richmond, Missouri, October 24, 1838, Document Containing the Correspondence, Orders, &C. in Relation to the Disturbances with the Mormons; and the Evidence Given Before the Hon. Austin A. King, Judge of the Fifth Judicial Circuit of the State of Missouri, at the Court-House in Richmond, in a Criminal Court of Inquiry, Begun November 12, 1838, on the Trial of Joseph Smith, Jr., and Others for High Treason and Other Crimes Against the State (Fayette, Missouri: Boon’s Lick Democrat, 1841), 58-59.  Matt W. points out that in the footnote of HC 3:167-68, Roberts inserted a John Taylor sermon, given apparently in the late 1870s, in which Taylor denied the contents of Marsh’s affidavit. Aside from the fact that this sermon was given forty years after the alleged statement was made in 1838, it should also be noted that the only thing that Taylor specifically repudiates in Marsh’s affidavit is his statement on the Danites. The question of whether or not Danites existed, however, has long been settled and even completely orthodox Mormon scholars do not dispute this (See Baugh, “A Call to Arms,” 36-43). The question of why Taylor would deny that the Danites existed, when it’s clear that they did, is unfortunately too complex to address here.

[3] Testimony of George M. Hinkle, Document, 128.

[4] Testimony of John Corrill, Document, 111.

[5] Testimony of George Walter, in James H. Hunt, Mormonism: Embracing the Origin, Rise and Progress of the Sect, with an Examination of the Book of Mormon; Also, Their Troubles in Missouri, and Final expulsion from the State; With and Appendix, giving an Account of the Late Disturbances in Illinois, Which Resulted in the Death of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, by G. W. Westbrook. (St. Louis, IL: Ustick & Davies, 1844), 217. Hat tip to Justin for pointing this account out to me. Like Hinkle and Corrill, Walter was witness for the state of Missouri at the November 1838 hearing where JS was tried for treason. For unknown reasons, Walter’s testimony was not included in the 1841 printed compilation of evidence and documents (see note #1), but was printed with in Hunt’s 1844 history. The manuscript hearing record containing all the testimony is located in the archives at the University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri.

[6] Testimony of Abner Scovil, in Hunt, Mormonism, 227. Like Walter’s testimony, Scovil’s was also ommitted from the 1841 printing but was included in Hunt’s history.

Article filed under Categories of Periodization: Origins From the Archives


  1. Huh?

    Are you seriously trying to say that Joseph was not generally a violent man, and that he just got a little carried away in Missouri?


    Comment by tiredmormon — November 18, 2007 @ 5:48 am

  2. Tired: I’m trying to say that, given the context in Missouri, JS could have compared himself to Muhammad. But I can’t see him making such a declaration either before, or after, the summer/fall of 1838. If you can provide compelling evidence that JS would have done this throughout his life, have at it.

    Comment by David Grua — November 18, 2007 @ 11:42 am

  3. tiredmormon, way to contribute something meaningful to the conversation. Feel free to stop by anytime and leave such intelligent and thorough comments.

    David, thanks for doing the research on this. I find Hinckle’s statement quotes JS as saying that “Mahomet was a true prophet.” Are there any other sources corroborating this proposal that JS saw Mohammed as a “true prophet”?

    Comment by Christopher — November 18, 2007 @ 9:40 pm

  4. Chris: I find that interesting as well. I haven’t come across anything else like it. I do know that “An Ordinance in Relation to Religious Societies,” passed March 1, 1841 by the Nauvoo City Council, specifically grants “Mohommedans…free toleration and equal Privilieges in this City” (Times and Seasons, March 1, 1841, 337). At a time when there were few Muslims in America my sense is that this was fairly progressive.

    Comment by David Grua — November 18, 2007 @ 10:17 pm

  5. David,

    Are the legal documents printed in James Hunt’s Mormonism: Embracing the Origin, Rise and Progress of the Sect legitimate? I noticed a deposition of George Walter in which made similar claims (p. 217).

    Comment by Justin — November 19, 2007 @ 10:23 am

  6. Justin,

    Thanks for reminding me about the Walter testimony. I had forgotten that he also recorded the Muhammad statement. While I was looking in Hunt I also found that Abner Scovil recorded part of the statement as well.

    Yes, Hunt published the testimonies from the November 1838 hearing. I’ve only spot checked the transcriptions in Hunt, but from what I’ve seen the documents are the same as those published by the Missouri legislature in 1841. For reasons unknown to me, the testimonies of Robert Snodgrass, George Walter, and Abner Scovil were not included when the Missouri legislature published the hearing proceedings in 1841. I’m fairly certain that the complete hearing record was housed in the Daviess County Circuit Court, Gallatin, Missouri in the early 1840s, so I assume that Hunt went there to get the other three testimonies.

    Comment by David Grua — November 19, 2007 @ 11:38 am

  7. Hmmm, just an interesting note. This thread is talking about inaccurate historical references in a movie and a graphic novel. The other post for today, about the pre-screening of the new Emma Smith movie, seems to cut it a free pass for not being completely historically accurate, as it is a movie.

    I’m not trying to make trouble here, but it would almost seem that we are holding a higher standard for artists outside the faith, especially those critical of our religion and history, than for those with a sympathetic view or internal artistic connections.

    I certainly think that we should point out inaccuracies when they are used in a defamatory manner, but perhaps it gives us maybe a better perspective on ourselves when we are tempted to overlook omissions or incorrect statements that perhaps are more convenient for us?

    Comment by kevinf — November 19, 2007 @ 5:08 pm

  8. Kevin: Thanks for your comment. I can see how you’d look at it that way. You’re probably right that we go easier on Mormon pop culture than on anti-Mormon pop culture.

    Although The Enchanter and September Dawn motivated this post, it ultimately is an examination of the primary sources behind the quote. If I were to completely rewrite the post, I think I would leave out the commentary on the comic book and September Dawn and put in more information concerning the 1838 context from which the statement (allegedly) came from.

    As for the other post, I would hardly characterize my review as giving the Emma Smith movie “a free pass.” Much of the review dwells on the historical inadequecies and omissions from the film. I did try to point out good things from the film however, and in doing so it may have come across as being too positive. If I were to point out ever flaw in the Emma Smith movie, that post would have been far too long and no one would read it.

    Comment by David Grua — November 19, 2007 @ 5:30 pm

  9. David,

    No argument from me. I just thought that the pairing of the two threads was interesting. If anything, the higher standard should apply to us. I was not aware of the Chick comics, and having looked at them, find them both simplistic and annoying. But then, such are the times we live in. It would appear that Romney’s candidacy has brought out every nut, along with a few honest critics in a flurry of religious bigotry which can only be compared to the current antipathy for all things Muslim.

    Thanks for the post, though. It’s always interesting to me to see how some of these quotes like this are best understood in their real historical context. Too often, they are used in an inflammatory way. It’s good for us to have the background.

    BTW, your blog is now # 2 on my reading list, after BCC. And kudos to Stapley for helping with the format. Looks great, and keep up the good work.

    Comment by kevinf — November 19, 2007 @ 5:50 pm

  10. Kevin: It is an interesting coincidence that I paired the posts that way. That was, of course, not intentional.

    Thanks for the kind words. We appreciate your well-prepared comments.

    Comment by David Grua — November 19, 2007 @ 6:01 pm

  11. Kevinf #7:

    Thank you for this comment. It reminds me of the need to be more charitable in how I approach everyone. I also think there is a place for saying “it just ain’t so,” even when I agree with the conclusions put forth. Good food for thought.

    Comment by Ugly Mahana — November 20, 2007 @ 1:33 pm

  12. ” About six hundred years after Christ a prophet rose in Arabia, by the name of Mahomet… Mahomet continued preaching: there was nothing in his religion to license iniquity or corruption; he preached the moral doctrines which the Savior taught; viz., to do as they would be done by; and not to do violence to any man, nor to render evil for evil; and to worship one God…. They raised a superior force of 3000 men, and had a second fight with the prophet (in 626) who could scarcely muster 1200 men; his orders not being obeyed, his followers left the field, but the prophet was determined not to be beat from the track, and concluded to fight the battle alone: his intrepidity and boldness on the occasion converted a leader of the infidel army, named Khaled, and he subsequently made him his general and surnamed him the sword of God…. Now this man descended from Abraham and was no doubt raised up by God on purpose to scourge the world for their idolatry.”
    –George Albert Smith, 23 September 1855

    “History abundantly shows the followers of Mahomet did not take the sword, either to enforce their religion or to defend themselves, until compelled to do so by the persecutions of their enemies, and then it was the only alternative that presented itself, to take up the sword and put down idolatry, and establish the worship of the one God… The Greek and Roman Churches, which have been called Christian, and which take the name of Christians as a cloak, have worshipped innumerable idols. On this account, on the simple subject of the Deity and His worship, if nothing more, I should rather incline, of the two, after all my early traditions, education, and prejudices, to the side of Mahomet, for on this point he is on the side of truth, and the Christian world on the side of idolatry and heathenism….Therefore, in that sense, in the very foundation of their creeds they are idolators; and instead of saying that Mahometanism prevailed against Christianity, and that Christianity was in danger of being done away by its prevalence, we would rather say, that where Mahometanism prevailed, it taught and established one truth at least, viz., the true and living God, and so far as this went, it did preserve people from worshipping idols….my rational faculties would compel me to admit that the Mahometan history and Mahometan doctrine was a standard raised against the most corrupt and abominable idolatry that ever perverted our earth, found in the creeds and worship of Christians, falsely so named…. Though Mahometan institutions are corrupt enough, and need reforming by the Gospel, I am inclined to think, upon the whole, leaving out the corruptions of men in high places among them, that they have better morals and better institutions than many Christian nations… So far as that one point is concerned, of worshipping the one true God under the name of Mahometanism, together with many moral precepts, and in war only acting on the defensive, I think they have exceeded in righteousness and truthfulness of religion, the idolatrous and corrupt church that has borne the name of Christianity.”
    –Parley P. Pratt, 23 September 1855

    “I believe myself that Mahomed, whom the Christians deride and call a false prophet and stigmatize with a great many epithets-I believe that he was a man raised up by the Almighty, and inspired to a certain extent by Him to effect the reforms which he did in his land, and in the nations surrounding. He attacked idolatry, and restored the great and crowning idea that there is but one God. He taught that idea to his people, and reclaimed them from polytheism and from the heathenish practices into which they had fallen. I believe many men were inspired who lived after him and before him, who, nevertheless, did not have the Holy Priesthood, but were led by the Spirit of God to strive for a better condition of affairs and to live a purer and higher life than those by whom they were surrounded were living. But while this was the case it was the Spirit of God that did it.”
    –George Q. Cannon, 2 September 1883

    Comment by Brad Kramer — November 21, 2007 @ 11:34 am

  13. Brad,

    Thanks for the great quotes. I assume that they’re all from the JDs?

    Comment by David Grua — November 21, 2007 @ 11:45 am

  14. Blogging at its best. You guys are awesome.

    Comment by Ardis Parshall — November 21, 2007 @ 12:06 pm

  15. yes, David. And those are just a few of the extant references.

    Comment by Brad Kramer — November 21, 2007 @ 12:07 pm

  16. Great post, David. As a former history teacher, you highlight exactly what bothered me the most about the textbooks I had to use to teach all history – but especially the history of unpopular peoples.

    I also see the same problem in the way that too many members buy into overly broad stereotypes about the beliefs and teachings of other Christian religions, but that is for a different thread.

    Comment by Ray — November 21, 2007 @ 12:56 pm

  17. This is great! This blog has fast become one of my favorite ones. This thread is really interesting, and thanks be to Brad for those quotes he brought. Of course, they kind of remind me of the old Purple Dragon 🙂 (ie. Missionary Guide) in the section on building common beliefs. They have an investigator say, “Yeah! I believe in the prophets, Abraham, Moses, Mohammed.” This seemed to imply that Mohammed was not a prophet, yet it seems that it was not as clear to the early church that he wasn’t. Very interesting, and probably could use it’s own post.

    Comment by Jacob M — November 21, 2007 @ 1:32 pm

  18. On February 15, 1978, the First Presidency released a statement that read in part:

    The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God?s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals.

    The Hebrew prophets prepared the way for the coming of Jesus Christ, the promised Messiah, who should provide salvation for all mankind who believe in the gospel.

    Consistent with these truths, we believe that God has given and will give to all people sufficient knowledge to help them on their way to eternal salvation, either in this life or in the life to come.

    This statement has recieved significant traction in Conference talks and in the Ensign. I think the natural reading of this statement is that God calls many as prophets.

    Comment by J. Stapley — November 21, 2007 @ 1:45 pm

  19. Just as an aside, many members don’t understand very well the distinction in the temple recommend interview between the Prophet and prophets, seers and revelators.

    The OT and NT and BofM definitions and roles of “prophets” (and prophetesses) is very different than our modern definition of “the Prophet” – but quite consistent with our understanding of prophets. That distinction is important when discussing Mohammed, Confucius, Ghandhi, Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, etc.

    Comment by Ray — November 21, 2007 @ 2:25 pm

  20. Ray, that is why I tend to view the term “President,” which is the official title of our Church’s leader as superior. One isn’t ordained or set apart as “Prophet.”

    Comment by J. Stapley — November 21, 2007 @ 2:55 pm

  21. Actually, J. Stapley, all the apostles are sustained as “prophets, seers and revelators”. Are you sure that the ordination of an apostle does not include either ordination or setting apart to those offices?

    Comment by Mark B. — November 21, 2007 @ 10:07 pm

  22. Mark, no doubt that the First Presdency, Q12 and Presiding Patriarch have been sustained as “prophets, seers and revelators.” Perhaps such verbiage is used in their being set apart. Unless I am mistaken, however, I don’t believe that there is an office of Seer or Revelator.

    It has been a while, but the Q12 and FP used to be ordained as Apostles then set apart in their various quorums and callings. Then it seems to me that it was McKay that was the first to be ordained as President since Joseph. Anyway, I’m not sure how much that really matters. I don’t think that the attributes of a calling become offices themselves. No?

    Comment by J. Stapley — November 21, 2007 @ 10:29 pm

  23. Mark, J was making the “Upper Case Prophet” point that I made in regard to the temple recommend interview. In that interview, the question as written distinguishes between “the Prophet” and the other prophets, seers and revelators. Many members don’t realize that the first is capitalized, while the other is not. Gordon B. Hinckley was not set apart and sustained as the “Prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” – but rather as the “President of the Church . . .” The interview draws attention to the fact that he is the presiding prophet and needs to be supported by the temple attending members as such, but the requirement for the general membership is only support of his role as President.

    That’s a truly interesting distinction, imo.

    Comment by Ray — November 21, 2007 @ 10:32 pm

  24. Smith did have a military streak and a temper that could overflow into violent self defense. It’s important, though, to situate all of this within antebellum Christianity. Many Protestants saw their form of Christianity as true _because_ it was dominant–their cultural superiority in the United States was an “external evidence” of the validity of their brand of Christianity. Islam was known to be a major world religion, which would tend to interfere with this external evidence, so explanations of Mohammed emphasized that he required violence to establish his hold in various countries. He was, of course, an “impostor” or “false prophet,” situated among a litany of para-Christian false prophets, so Protestants merely had to deal with the issue of Islam’s numerical predominance elsewhere to discount him entirely.

    Joseph Smith was in a similar position, having to argue with Protestants about the ‘evidences’ of his authority. Characterizations of Mormons as violent not only served to justify anti-Mormon violence, it also served to join him to the history of violent false prophets, thus negating the ‘evidence’ of Mormon validity manifested by their growing popularity and their distinctive appropriation of the Biblical witness.

    Comparisons to Mohammed would have been a natural part of this battle against evangelicals for Christian legitimacy, and defending Mohammed would have been important as an act of intellectual self defense. I have a memory of better 1840s source for discussions of Mohammed but will have to look for it.

    Incidentally, Matt Bowman and I are working on a paper on these issues that should be done in a few weeks. I recommend Spencer Fluhman’s PhD dissertation from some insight into the nature of the early anti-Mormon dialectic–large numbers of critics were comparing Smith to Mohammed among others.

    Comment by brown — November 22, 2007 @ 1:54 pm

  25. Sam: Thanks for bringing Fluhman into the discussion. I agree that that context is important to consider here.

    Where are you and Matt going to submit the paper?

    Comment by David Grua — November 23, 2007 @ 3:35 pm

  26. Thanks to David and Justin for putting together this collection of quotations. Smith’s alleged comment was apparently at the very end of June, just after the dissenters were driven. It fits, then, just between Rigdon’s late-mid June Salt Sermon and his 4 July Independence Day sermon–both of which Smith apparently approved of. Marsh’s claim that Smith said “he should yet tread down his enemies, and walk over their dead bodies” sounds like the “good for nothing but to be trodden under foot of men” language of the salt-having-lost-its-savor parable. The alleged statement along the lines of “if the people would let us alone” we would do likewise but if not I will become another Muhammed and conquer them follows precisely the warning the Rigdon gave on the fourth of July (minus the Muhammed analogy). Rigdon said that if attacked again the Mormons would carry the war to the door of their enemy. The question then arises of who is the enemy. The logic of the redeeming Zion revelation (now D&C 101) begins with the offending Missouri county and its judge, moves through the state governor, and ends with the President and the United States (which at that time stretched from the Rocky Mountains to the Atlantic Ocean). This was the extreme possible outcome of combining the redeeming Zion revelation and the 4th of July sermon. As Marsh puts it, “so should it be eventually with us”. So I can imagine the possiblity of Smith saying SOMETHING along these lines. Exactly what is hard to say. The salt sermon rhetoric applies better to dissident insiders than to outsiders so I wonder if Marsh has spliced that in. In all but the Corrill account, the “if the people would let him alone” line is too consistent and probably shaped by memories of the later oral delivery and printed version of the Independence Day sermon. The account by Corrill, usually a more balanced voice of dissent (compare Reed Peck), sounds the least accurate to me. He applies the Mohamet line to establishing the gospel and making converts by force. That’s not Smith.

    Comment by Mark Ashurst-McGee — November 24, 2007 @ 12:04 pm

  27. Mark: There is some support for your reading of Corrill’s statement in Orson Spencer’s letters. Spencer here is addressing critics that compare the legion and its commander to Mohammed. Spencer doesn’t refer directly to Corrill (whose November 1838 testimony was by this time available in print), but the language closely reflects Corrill’s claim.

    I can assure you that neither Mr. Smith, nor any other intelligent Latter Day Saint, ever intends to make one convert by the sword. (Times and Seasons, January 2, 1843, 57)

    Comment by David Grua — November 24, 2007 @ 12:23 pm

  28. Though Joseph Smith is dressed up in Nauvoo Legion attire, the Chick comic book (unlike what you allege for the movie “September Dawn”) actually gets the date right for the alleged words of Joseph Smith.

    P. 22 of The Enchanter talks first about February of 1834. The middle panel begins, “Over the next four years Joseph tried to build his army…” That adds up to 1838.

    P. 23 of The Enchanter doesn’t give a date, but it can be assumed it is still 1838, because two pages later (p. 25)it talks about Nauvoo, saying, “By 1839 they settled in Illinois and built a city called “Nauvoo.”

    So while these Gentiles may have erred in the form of dress Joseph wore, unlike the movie “September Dawn” (as you allege), they got the *date* right: late 1838, vs. 1844 at the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor (which is found on p. 28, panel 1 of their comic).

    Further, I found Chick Publications did what they could to document their claims on their website at this page:

    What they wrote on that panel online is this:

    PAGE 23, panel #3

    Joseph’s “Second Muhammad” speech

    On October 14, 1838, Joseph Smith called himself a “second Muhammad” as he was concluding a speech in the public square at Far West, Missouri. Those words have been verified by affidavits from Thomas B. Marsh,69 Orson Hyde (from Joseph’s Quorum of the Twelve), George M. Hinkle, John Corrill, W.W. Phelps (a major leader in the Mormon church), Samson Avard (founder of the Danites), and Reed Peck.70

    69For the full affidavit of Thomas B. Marsh, see The Rocky Mountain Saints by T. B. H. Stenhouse (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1873), pp. 89-90. Available as a free download from

    70 See No Man Knows My History, pp. 230-231. See also “I Will Be a Second Mohammed” at

    I can be a little more charitable when I see an unbeliever has at least made an effort to get at facts, whether erroneous or not.

    Check it out for yourself and see what you think.

    Comment by OB Server — November 29, 2007 @ 7:45 pm

  29. Please pardon my error. I added a period at the end of the weblinks. I didn’t know the post would act differently from a Word doc or the Chick website. They should say this:

    Sorry for the messed up links. This is new to me!

    Comment by OB Server — November 29, 2007 @ 7:53 pm

  30. OB Server: Thanks for the comment. Let me just say that the documentation provided is severely flawed, but I’m really not interested in engaging it at this time.

    That’s an interesting IP address that you’re writing from. Say hi to Jack Chick when you see him, from the Juvenile Instructor.

    Comment by David Grua — November 30, 2007 @ 11:57 am

  31. I really admire the careful construction of the language used in the quotes in Brad’s #12. All three are clear about the inspiration behind Islam as coming from God to face down the idolatry of apostate Christianity while not endorsing Mohammad as a true prophet. There is much that I have read in the Koran that I can endorse, but equally there are many things that stand in opposition to the Gospel, particularly in the nature of the Savior. “Allah has no companion.” The biggest obstacle to teaching the Gospel to Muslims, however, is their insistence that Mohammed is the seal of the prophets.

    Comment by Eric Boysen — December 1, 2007 @ 4:27 pm


Recent Comments

J. Stapley on The historiography of adoptive: “Thanks, guys.”

Gary Bergera on The historiography of adoptive: “Really interesting information, J. Thanks.”

John Hajicek on The historiography of adoptive: “THIS is how all Mormon history should be written. Outside of Utah, historians write the history of the story, instead of writing a…”

Jeff T on Digital News: The Woman's: “Thanks Liz and JJohnson! I know that there are efforts to capture data from individual articles, although that might be a while down the pipeline.…”

JJohnson on Digital News: The Woman's: “Such a great source. And the scans are beautiful. Any attempt being made to identify all the authors? I'm particularly interested in A.P. today. …”

Liz Hammind on Digital News: The Woman's: “I read the first 4 years of the paper and it was fascinating - pioneer women had a much different view of religion than modern…”